In Re: MacBook Keyboard Litigation

Background

Apple asked to seal portions of its opening briefs and supporting materials for motions seeking to exclude the opinions of Hal J. Singer, Ph.D., David V. Niebuhr, Ph.D., and Charles M. Curley. The order addressed only Apple’s requests concerning its opening briefs, while also addressing related requests to the extent they involved the same material. The requests covered four general categories: financial information about MacBooks with “butterfly” keyboards; proprietary keyboard designs; repair and replacement information; and Apple’s testing processes and results.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records are subject to a strong presumption of public access. Because the materials concerned motions closely related to the underlying claims, Apple had to provide specific facts showing compelling reasons for sealing them. The court considered whether disclosure could harm Apple’s competitive position, including by revealing trade secrets, product information, financial information, or business strategies. The court also rejected sealing based only on speculation or material that was already publicly available.

Rulings by category

For financial information, the court allowed some product-specific sales, pricing, repair-rate, and profit-margin information to remain sealed. It denied sealing for aggregate damages estimates, repeating its earlier ruling that those estimates should not be sealed. The detailed tables in the order specify which portions of the reports, briefs, deposition excerpts, and exhibits were granted or denied.

For proprietary keyboard designs, the court allowed sealing for material that revealed Apple’s designs in a manner similar to information previously protected. It denied sealing for portions discussing publicly accessible information, information already part of the public record, statements that revealed nothing meaningful outside their context, and information about hypothetical situations or other companies’ products that were not directly related to Apple’s products or designs. The court also denied sealing for the portion of Charles M. Curley’s reply report discussing his computer-aided-design analysis.

For repair and replacement information, the court generally allowed sealing of Apple-specific proprietary information but denied sealing for material concerning hypothetical situations or other companies’ products and designs that were not directly related to Apple’s repairs and replacements.

For testing processes and results, the court denied requests that were not clearly connected to Apple’s own proprietary testing processes or test results. It also denied requests for information that had become publicly available because Apple had not previously asked to seal it, as well as inconsistent requests seeking to seal quotations from documents that Apple had left unsealed. The court allowed some requests that Apple had placed in this category even though they belonged under another category, but warned Apple to take greater care in future sealing requests.

Disposition and further instructions

The court concluded that it “GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART” the requests to seal. It also “GRANTS IN PART” the remaining administrative motions to the extent they sought to seal material addressed in this order. The parties were directed to meet and confer about unresolved material, reassess their proposed redactions, and file a joint consolidated motion to seal by February 14, 2022. By the same date, they had to provide a stipulated redacted copy of the court’s January 25, 2022 order denying Apple’s motions to exclude expert opinions. Judge Edward J. Davila warned that future motions seeking to seal material the court had already found non-sealable could be denied in their entirety.